
PUBLISHED FOR THE 

NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE. 
1897 . 
















i 


























/ 

# 









THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


AND 

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 


A PAPER 


READ AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF 


The National Ciyil Service Reform League. 


DECEMBER 17, 1897- 


By HENRY HITCHCOCK. 

tt - 


PUBLISHED FOR THE 

NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE. 
1897 . 










THE EEPDBLICAN PARTY AND CIVIL 
SERVICE REFORM. 


A Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the National 
Civil Service Reform League , at Cincinnati , Ohio , 
December 17 , 1897, 


BY HENRY HITCHCOCK. 


Fifteen years, less one month, have now elapsed since 
the statute was enacted, which embedded in the frame¬ 
work and administrative policy of the national government 
the wholesome doctrine that public office is a public trust, 
and that public servants, claarged with subordinate adminis¬ 
trative duties, ought to be appointed, not because of polit¬ 
ical opinions, nor as a reward for partisan service, but 
for merit and fitness alone. That great legislative event 
was thus recorded in the Address of President Curtis, at 
the second annual meeting of this League: 

“ On the 16th of January, 1883, upon the earnest recom¬ 
mendation of the President, and by overwhelming majorities 
in Congress, the Pendleton bill became a law, and on the 
16th of July, 1883, amid the general applause of the country, 
it went into effect.’’ 

That doctrine was not new. The fathers of the republic 
not only proclaimed but practiced it, as an axiom of polit¬ 
ical morals. Washington required of applicants for office 
proofs of ability, integrity and fitness. “Beyond this,” 
he said, “ nothing with me is necessary or will be of any 
avail to them in my decision.” In at least one historic 
instance he preferred for appointment an avowed political 
opponent to a valued personal friend, upon the express 





2 


ground that the latter did not possess the business quali¬ 
fications of the former. Jefferson proclaimed it on the 
threshold of his first administration, declaring that of the 
thousands of officers in the United States a very few individ¬ 
uals only,— probably not twenty—would be removed, 
and these only for doing what they ought not to have done. 
Again, in his famous letter to the merchants of New Haven, 
he declared that the only questions concerning a candidate 
should be,— “ Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful 
to the Constitution? ” And Madison, Monroe and John 
Quincy Adams so faithfully followed their example that the 
Joint Congressional Committee upon Retrenchment re¬ 
ported, in 1868, that after having consulted all accessible 
means of information they had not learned of a single 
removal of a subordinate officer except for cause, from the 
beginning of Washington’s administration to the close of 
that of John Quincy Adams,— a period of forty years. 

It is not the purpose of this paper to trace the steps by 
which, during the succeeding forty years, a very different doc¬ 
trine gained ascendency and an opposite practice came to 
prevail. The history of the spoils system, its corrupting 
tendencies and the menace which it involves to the perpetuity 
of our government, are unhappily familiar to every student 
of American politics, — to none more than the members of 
this League, whose privilege and delight it was, year by 
year, to listen to the annual addresses of our lamented 
President, distinguished alike for their historic accuracy and 
fullness, their persuasive and manly eloquence and their 
captivating literary form. Those addresses, and other 
papers, not less brilliant and memorable, prepared by Mr. 
Curtis from the year 1869 up to the organization of this 
League, in August, 1881, contain also — and not only con¬ 
tain but to an important degree constitute,— the history of 
the struggle to overthrow the spoils system which began in 





3 


1867, and after fifteen years of determined effort, of vary¬ 
ing success and frequent disappointment, was crowned with 
the sanction of law in 1883. 

That Act, substantially unchanged, and, as we rejoice to 
know, honestly enforced, stands upon the statute book to¬ 
day. But the struggle and the conflict are not ended. 
Both before and since its enactment, in Congress and 
among the people at large, able men of all political parties 
have enlisted on one or the other side of the controversy. 
During all these thirty years, in presidential messages and 
declarations of policy, in Congressional debates and in the 
successive platforms of the great political parties, the 
reform of the civil service, the mischiefs and dangers of the 
spoils system and the methods by which they ought to be 
prevented, have been conspicuous topics. In Congress 
efforts have again and again been made, hitherto always 
unsuccessful, to repeal the Civil Service Act of 1883, or to 
destroy its efficiency by refusing the necessary appropria¬ 
tions, in which members of both the great parties have 
joined. 

In March last, a new Administration assumed the reins 
of government, and within the past ten days the 55th Con¬ 
gress has assembled for its first regular session. The 
election of its candidate for President ffi 1896, and of a 
large majority in the House of Representatives, assures to 
the Republican party, if not the absolute control of the 
legislation of this Congress, at any rate the power to prevent 
the repeal or modification of any existing law. Scarcel) 7 
had that Administration assumed the responsibilities of 
office, and while the new Congress was occupied with ques¬ 
tions of revenue legislation whose urgency had induced the 
President to call an extra session, when the formation of an 
anti-civil service reform league was loudly announced. 
During that extra session speeches were made, both in the 


4 


Senate and the House, by members of that party, elabo¬ 
rately and savagely attacking and misrepresenting not only 
the methods and provisions of the Civil Service Act, but the 
principles upon which it is based. And, if the press reports 
are correct, on the second day of the regular session which 
begun last week, the deliberations of the House as to the 
proper reference of the various portions of the President’s 
annual message were interrupted and delayed by speeches 
from two members, one a Democratic representative from 
Alabama, the other elected as a Republican from Ohio, 
both bitterly denouncing the Civil Service Act, advocating 
the abandonment of the merit system, and taking issue 
with the President’s statement that it has the approval of 
the people. 

Under these circumstances, the actual relation of the 
Republican party to civil service reform and the probable or 
even possible attitude of that party towards the system now 
established by law, are questions not only germane to the 
objects of this League but which may well receive the 
earnest consideration of its members, and of the people at 
large. 

How shall those questions be answered? By what rules 
may we reasonably forecast the attitude of any political 
party ? By what test may we fairly determine the obliga¬ 
tions and gauge the fidelity of its members, especially of 
those whom it has placed in office,— above all, those who 
have been elected to the State or National Legislature, as fit 
and loyal representatives of the party policy? Obviously 
we must look, we can only look, to the formal declarations 
of its policy publicly made by that party through its author¬ 
ized or official representatives, and to the public or official 
acts of its recognized leaders. Thus only can the policy of 
any party be made known. Only by accepting that test can 
any party organization reasonably or honorably claim public 


5 


confidence or support. Doubtless any political party may 
change its policy; for party organization is only a means to 
an end, and every citizen, under a government of the peo¬ 
ple, is free at any time to adopt in good faith whatever 
political views or principles may commend themselves to his 
judgment and to support whatever party best represents 
those views. These are mere truisms. But it follows from 
them that no political party which has come into power by 
professing certain principles or proclaiming a given policy 
as its own, can consistently or honorably abandon those 
principles or repudiate that policy and still hold fast to 
the power or deserve the confidence and support thus 
gained. And what is true of the party is true of each 
one of its official representatives, since it can speak and 
act through them alone. 

Above all is it true of the legislator who owes his seat, 
and his share in the law-making power, to the confidence of 
the people in the pledges of his party. When the question 
is not merely of methods, as to which a large discretion 
must be allowed, but of the substantial fulfillment or the 
repudiation of those pledges, the man of honor can have but 
one choice,— he must fulfill those pledges or he must resign. 

What position, then, has the Republican party of the 
United States publicly taken in respect of civil service 
reform? What policy has it announced, what pledges has it 
given through its authorized representatives ? 

The platform, or formal declaration of its policy, adopted 
by the National Republican Convention at St. Louis, on 
June 18, 1896, by a vote of 818J to 105J, leaves no doubt 
on that point. 

I quote from that platform as follows: 

“ The Civil Service law was placed on the statute book by 
the Republican party, which has always sustained it, and 
we renew our repeated declarations that it shall be thor- 


6 


oughly and honestly enforced and extended wherever 
practicable.” 

The concluding paragraph of that official document, 
referring to each and all of the declarations which preceded 
it, was as follows: 

“ Such are the principles and policies of the Republican 
party. By these principles we will abide, and these policies 
we will put into execution. We ask for them the considerate 
judgment of the American people.” 

That Convention having nominated William McKinley as 
the Republican candidate for the Presidency at the election 
in November, 1896, this declaration of the party policy was 
officially communicated to him with the tender of said nom¬ 
ination. On August 26, 1896, he formally accepted the 
nomination in a letter to the Notification Committee, in 
which he considered in detail the “ questions at issue in the 
pending campaign.” From that letter I quote as follows: 

“The pledge of the Republican National Convention that 
our civil service laws 4 shall be sustained and thoroughly 
and honestly enforced, and extended wherever practicable,’ 
is in keeping with the position of the party for the past 
twenty-four years and will be faithfully observed. Our op¬ 
ponents decry these reforms. They appear to be willing 
to abandon all the advantages gained after so many years’ 
agitation and effort. They encourage a return to methods 
of party favoritism which both parties have often denounced, 
that experience has condemned, and that the people have 
repeatedly disapproved. The Republican party earnestly 
opposes this reactionary and entirely unjustifiable policy. 
It will take no backward step on this question. It will 
seek to improve, but never to degrade the public service.” 

The National Democratic Convention which met at Chicago 
on July 7, 1896, accepted the issue thus tendered. The 
civil service plank in that platform, while characteristically 
ambiguous, denounced what was called, “ Life tenure in the 





7 


Civil Service,” and it is a matter of political history that 
the Democratic candidate for President and his supporters 
proclaimed their determination, if they should obtain control 
of the Government, to abolish the system established by the 
Civil Service Act of 1883. There was no doubt in the public 
mind, when the general elections of 1896 were held, what 
was the position of either party upon the question of civil 
service reform. 

Upon the issues thus made up, the contending parties 
went to the country. The American people responded by 
electing William McKinley President of the United States 
by a plurality of 573,000 and a clear majority overall oppo¬ 
nents of about 258,000 votes. The unqualified promise of 
the Republican party, not only to sustain but to honestly 
enforce and extend the existing civil service law, was accepted 
by the people. 

On March 4, 1897, President McKinley, on taking the 
oath of office, made the customary Inaugural Address, set¬ 
ting forth the policy of his Administration. From this I 
quote the following passage relating to the civil service: 

“ Reforms in the civil service must go on, but the change 
should be real and genuine, not perfunctory, or prompted 
by a zeal in behalf of any party, simply because it happens 
to be in power. As a member of Congress I voted and 
spoke in favor of the present law, and 1 shall attempt its 
enforcement in the spirit in which it was enacted. The pur¬ 
pose in view was to secure the most efficient service of the 
best men who would accept appointment under the govern¬ 
ment, retaining faithful and devoted public servants in 
office, but shielding none under the authority of any rule or 
custom who are inefficient, incompetent or unworthy. The 
best interests of the country demand this, and the people 
heartily approve the law wherever and whenever it has been 
thus administered.” 

These declarations, I need hardly remind you, are in 


8 


complete harmony with the utterances and the votes of 
President McKinley during his long and distinguished ser¬ 
vice in the House of Representatives. Of those utterances, 
one illustration will suffice. In 1890, the most strenuous 
attempt of all was made to cripple the operation of the 
Civil Service Act by cutting down the appropriations neces¬ 
sary to carry it into effect. Mr. McKinley, then Chairman 
of the House Committee of Ways and Means, successfully 
led the opposition in a speech from which I quote as 
follows: 

“ Mr. Chairman, if the Republican party of this country 
is pledged to any one thing more than another, it is the 
maintenance of the civil service law and to its efficient 
execution — not only that, but to its enlargement and its 
further application to the public service. 

“ The law that stands upon our statute books to-day was 
put there by Republican votes. It was a Republican measure. 
Every national platform of the Republican party, since its 
enactment, has declared not only in favor of its continuance 
in full vigor, but in favor of its enlargement so as to apply 
more generally to the public service. And this, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, is not alone the declaration and purpose of the Repub¬ 
lican party, but it is in accordance with its highest and 
best sentiment — aye, more, it is sustained by the best 
sentiment of the whole country, Republican and Democratic 
alike.” 

It is well known that since his inauguration the President 
has carried out these pledges with characteristic integrity. 
It is said that strong efforts have been made to induce him 
to modify the civil service regulations in a sense unfriendly 
to genuine reform: but if so, such efforts have failed. 
Suggestions respectfully submitted to the President, on 
behalf of this League, touching the practical working of the 
Act and apparently desirable amendments to the civil 
service rules, have been received and considered in a frank 
and cordial spirit most gratifying to your representatives. 




9 


Two important amendments to the civil service rules have 
been promulgated by the President. 

Rule II, relating to dismissals from office, has been 
amended in a very important respect by adding the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“ No removal shall be made from any position subject to 
competitive examination except for just cause and upon 
written charges filed with the head of the Department, or 
other appointing officer, and of which the accused shall have 
full notice and an opportunity to make defense.” 

This amendment has met the hearty approbation of the 
friends of the reform. It is manifestly just, and is an addi¬ 
tional safeguard against the arbitrary dismissal of meritori¬ 
ous employees, really for political reasons, but upon some 
other pretext, while avoiding the opposite danger of restrict¬ 
ing the indispensable power of prompt removal where just 
cause exists. 

Rule VI, which prescribes exceptions from the require¬ 
ments of examination or registration, is amended, as to the 
custom-house service, by extending to all customs districts 
and to each sub-port or station, the exemption of one 
chief or principal deputy or assistant collector, heretofore 
confined to customs districts whose employees numbered 
one hundred and fifty or more; and as to the internal rev¬ 
enue service, by extending the exemption, already in force, 
of one employee in each internal revenue district who shall 
act as cashier or chief deputy or assistant collector, so as to 
include also one deputy collector in each internal revenue 
district where the number of employees in the collector’s 
office exceeds four, and one deputy collector in each stamp 
or branch office. But this rule as amended, further pro¬ 
vides that all appointments to the positions in the customs 
and internal revenue service excepted by this rule shall be 
subject to an examination to be prescribed by the Secretary 




10 


of the Treasury, not disapproved by the Civil Service Com¬ 
mission, equal to the examination held by said commission 
for positions of like grade, such examinations to be con¬ 
ducted by the Commission, in accordance with its regula¬ 
tions. 

All the amendments above mentioned were recommended 
by the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the 
Civil Service Commission. 

In entire harmony with these official acts and declara¬ 
tions, the first Annual Message of President McKinley, 
received by Congress on the 6th of this month, included 
among other topics the further improvement of the civil ser¬ 
vice, renewing his pledges to that end. And while referring 
to the power of removal for incompetency or inefficiency as 
a vital safeguard to the reform, the President again declared 
his conviction that the system has the approval of the people, 
and his purpose to uphold and extend it. 

If, as I have assumed, the true attitude and policy of a 
great political party, and the obligations to the people at 
large which it accepts by seeking and gaining success 
at the polls, are to be judged by the formal declarations 
and pledges of its authorized representatives, by the politi¬ 
cal issues which it tenders to its opponents and by the 
official acts and declarations of those who, in its name and 
through its support, have been charged with the responsi¬ 
bilities of government,— then the inquiry as to the present 
attitude and obligations of the Republican party of the 
United States, in respect of the conduct of the civil ser¬ 
vice, the honest enforcement and extension of the exist¬ 
ing civil service law, the faithful application of the merit 
system to appointments and removals from administrative 
offices, and the unflinching opposition to the spoils sys¬ 
tem which that implies, is fully answered by the acts 
and declarations above stated. If the Republican party, 


and the men who on the faith of its promises have been 
entrusted by the people of the United States with the con¬ 
duct of the government, are not pledged to these things, to 
what are they pledged? In no partisan spirit, but as a 
citizen who values the immense power of party organization 
in proportion as it is honestly used for worthy ends, I re¬ 
joice that such an answer can be made to that inquiry,— 
still more in the assurance afforded by the exalted personal 
character and honorable public career of the President, that 
these pledges will be faithfully kept. 

Such is the present attitude of the Republican party 
in relation to civil service reform. But the history and 
traditions of a great party count for much in any horoscope 
of its future. As we have seen, that party, at the opening 
of the campaign of 1896, in submitting its principles and 
policy to the considerate judgment of the American people, 
not only claimed for itself the authorship of the Civil Service 
Act of 1883, and the credit of having always sustained it, 
but referred to its repeated declarations, once more renewed, 
that it “shall be thoroughly and .honestly enforced and 
extended wherever practicable.” 

It may be of interest to briefly recall the facts which sup¬ 
port that claim, with some reference to events which preceded 
them, in which prominent Republicans took part. And in so 
doing, I desire to acknowledge with sincere thanks the valu¬ 
able data furnished me by the indefatigable and thoroughly 
well-informed Secretary of the League. 

**VAs already stated, the enactment of the civil service law 
of 1883 was the culmination of a struggle which really began 
in Congress in 1867. Three years earlier, in 1864, that emi¬ 
nent Republican, Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, intro¬ 
duced in the Senate the first civil service reform bill; but 
it was not seriously discussed or acted upon in either 
House. 


12 


In January, 1867, Thomas A. Jenckes, an able and promi¬ 
nent Republican member of the House from Rhode Island, 
presented an elaborate report from the Joint Committee on 
Retrenchment of the 39th Congress, embodying a vast 
amount of authentic information, including the experience of 
foreign governments, concerning the proper conduct of the 
civil service, and advocating its reform substantially on the 
lines since adopted. In May, 1868, in the 40th Congress, 
Mr. Jenckes presented a second report, accompanied by a 
bill to regulate the civil service, which was made a special 
order for a subsequent day. The facts and principles set 
forth in these two reports, covering three hundred printed 
pages, were supported by Mr. Jenckes in speeches 
of great force, and furnished data of great value 
to the Civil Service Commission of 1871: but it was 
seed time, too early for harvest, and his party did not 
commit itself to the measure. But the seed was sown, the 
education of public sentiment began, and one of its earliest 
and most valuable lessons was contained in the masterly 
address of George William Curtis before the American 
Social Science Association in October, 1869, upon civil ser¬ 
vice reform. 

In March, 1869, President Grant’s first term began. In 
his annual message of December, 1870, he earnestly called 
the attention of Congress to the necessity of a reform in the 
civil service, declaring that no duty so much embarrassed 
the executive and heads of departments as that of appoint¬ 
ments, that no such arduous and thankless labor was 
imposed upon Senators and Representatives as that of 
finding places for constituents, that the existing system 
did not secure the best men, and often not even fit men for 
public places, and that the elevation and purification of the 
civil service would be hailed with approval by the whole 
people of the United States. 


13 


During the last week of that session of Congress, ending 
March 3, 1871, Senator Trumbull, of Illinois, introduced a 
bill which went to the House in the form of an amendment 
to the pending appropriation bill. It passed both Houses, 
and was approved by the President on the same day, March 
3. This bill, now known as Section 1753 of the Revised 
Statutes, was as follows: 

“The President is authorized to prescribe such regula¬ 
tions for the admission of persons into the civil service of 
the United States as may best promote the efficiency 
thereof and ascertain the fitness of each candidate in re¬ 
spect to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for 
the branch of service into which he seeks to enter; and 
for this purpose he may employ suitable persons to conduct 
such inquiries, and may prescribe their duties, and establish 
regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive 
appointments in the civil service.” 

It may fairly be said that in passing this bill, the Repub¬ 
lican party, under the leadership of President Grant, what¬ 
ever its subsequent shortcomings,distinctly took ground in 
favor of the reform, and President Grant during the next 
three years gave it his earnest support. 

On March 4th, 1871, he appointed an excellent commis¬ 
sion, with George William Curtis at its head, to prescribe 
rules for carrying the Act into effect. On December 18, 
1871, the Commission presented its report, prepared by Mr. 
Curtis, with appropriate rules, which the President adopted, 
at once transmitting the report to Congress by special 
message, announcing his purpose to faithfully execute the 
rules, and asking for all the strength which Congress could 
give him to carry out the reforms proposed. 

In April, 1872, the Advisory Board appointed by the 
President under these rules made a further report, group¬ 
ing various offices, and accompanied by further regulations, 
which were at once adopted and promulgated by executive 


14 


order. In his annual message in December, 1872, the 
President, referring to the abuses which had grown up 
through appointments to office as a reward of political ser¬ 
vice, again declared his purpose to apply these rules so as 
to secure the greatest possible reform in the civil service, 
and recommended legislation to make them permanent. 
In his annual message of December, 1873, he again com¬ 
mended the reform to Congress, recommending the appoint¬ 
ment of a committee of Congress to act with the Civil 
Service Board in devising permanent rules, “which will 
secure the services of honest and capable officials and which 
will also protect them in a degree of independence while in 
office.” 

In his annual message of December, 1874, the President 
again commended the reform to Congress, stating that the 
effect of the civil service rules was beneficial, and tended 
to elevate the service, but that it was impracticable to main¬ 
tain them without direct and positive support of Congress: 
further stating that if Congress should adjourn without 
positive legislation on the subject he would regard such 
action as a disapproval of the system and that competitive 
examinations would be abandoned. Congress did adjourn 
without such action, and for the time the progress of the 
reform was arrested. 

Meanwhile the growth of public sentiment in favor of 
the reform produced its effect upon the Republican party 
at large and even among certain of its leaders who would 
gladly have seen it fail. The National Republican platform 
of 1872 contained the following declaration: 

“ Any system of the civil service under which the sub¬ 
ordinate positions of the Government are considered re¬ 
wards for mere party zeal is fatally demoralizing, and we 
therefore favor a reform of the system by laws which shall 
abolish the evils of patronage and make honesty, efficiency, 


15 


and fidelity the essential qualifications for public positions, 
without practically creating a life tenure of office.” 

The Republican platform of 1876, reported by Senator 
Hawley, of Connecticut, and unanimously adopted, con¬ 
tained the following: 

“ Under the constitution the President and heads of 
departments are to make nominations for office; the Senate 
is to advise and consent to appointments, and the House of 
Representatives is to accuse and prosecute faithless officers. 
The best interest of the public service demands that these 
distinctions be respected: that Senators and Representatives 
who may be judges and accusers should not dictate appoint¬ 
ments to office. The invariable rule in appointments should 
have reference to the honesty, fidelity and capacity of 
the appointees, giving to the party in power those places 
where harmony and vigor of administration require its policy 
to be represented, but permitting all others to be filled by 
persons selected with sole reference to the efficiency of the 
public service, and the right of all citizens to share in the 
honor of rendering faithful service to the country.” 

In March, 1877, President Hayes was inaugurated. In 
his Inaugural Address he dwelt upon the paramount neces¬ 
sity of reform in the civil service, referring to the plat¬ 
forms of both the Republican and the Democratic parties in 
1876, as expressing the united voice and will of the whole 
country and virtually pledging both parties to give it 
their unreserved support. His first annual message in 
December, 1877, dwelt at length on the subject and urged 
an appropriation to enable the Civil Service Commission to 
continue its work. Mr. Curtis having resigned from the 
Commission in 1875, Mr. Dorman B. Eaton was subse¬ 
quently appointed its chairman, and in May, 1877, at the 
request of the President, but at his own expense, visited 
England, studied the civil service system there, and subse¬ 
quently published the result of his researches in his well- 


16 


known and valuable Report entitled, “ Civil Service in Great 
Britain.” But that Congress failed to respond to the Presi¬ 
dent’s request, and his annual Message of December, 1879, 
again urged, at still greater length, the necessity of the 
reform, strongly denouncing the evils of a partisan spoils 
system, and referring to the repeated recommendations 
of President Grant, the salutary results of the competitive 
system established by the Civil Service Commission of 
1871, and the additional testimony in favor of that system 
furnished by the reports of the Secretary of the Interior, the 
Postmaster General, and the postmasters and collectors in 
New York and other large cities, where it was still main¬ 
tained. I need not remind you with what firmness and 
complete practical success the Secretary of the Interior 
under President Hayes, now the honored and worthy suc¬ 
cessor of George William Curtis as President of this League, 
exemplified the methods and the benefits of genuine civil 
service reform throughout his department, during his entire 
term of office. 

In June, 1880, the Republican National Convention 
adopted, without a division, as part of its official declaration 
of party principles and purposes, the following: 

' “ The Republican party, adhering to principles affirmed 

by its last National Convention of respect for the Constitu¬ 
tional rules covering appointments to office, adopts the 
declaration of President Hayes that the reform of the civil 
service should be thorough, radical and complete. To this 
end it demands the co-operation of the Legislative with the 
Executive Department of the Government, and that Con¬ 
gress shall so legislate that fitness, ascertained by proper, 
practical tests, shall admit to the public service.” 

President Hayes’ last message, in December, 1880, again 
recommended the reform of the civil service, especially in 
the method of appointment and removal by legislation; but 
no responsive legislation was had. 


17 


President Garfield, in his Inaugural Address, on March 
4th, 1881, declaring that the civil service could never be 
placed on a satisfactory basis until it was regulated by law, 
announced his purpose, at the proper time, to ask Congress, 
for the good of the service and the protection of executive 
officers and employees, to legislate concerning appointments 
and removals. This purpose was defeated by his untimely 
and tragic death in September following. But his deliber¬ 
ate and public utterances in Congress and elsewhere, long 
previously made, leave no doubt as to what his recommenda¬ 
tions would have been. Seldom, in brief compass, have the 
evils of what he described as “ the corrupting doctrine 
that ‘ to the victors belong the spoils/ shamelessly an¬ 
nounced as an article of political faith and practice/* been 
more clearly pointed out than by General Garfield in an 
elaborate article entitled “ A Century of Congress/’ pub¬ 
lished in the Atlantic Monthly for June, 1877. 

The first session of the 47th Congress began on December 
5th, 1881, the Senate being composed of 37 Republicans, 
37 Democrats, 1 Independent and 1 Readjuster; and the 
House, of 290 members, of whom 150 were Republicans 
and 140 Democrats, with three vacant seats. President 
Arthur’s first message, received on December 6th, discussed 
at length the plans proposed for the reform of the civil ser¬ 
vice. Conceding the success of the competitive system in 
Great Britain, he expressed doubts as to the applicability of 
some features of that system to the civil service of the 
United States. But he stated that if Congress should 
establish competitive tests for admission to the service, no 
such doubts would deter him from giving the measure his 
earnest support, and earnestly recommended the appropria¬ 
tion of $25,000.00 per annum for the enforcement of the 
Civil Service Act of 1871; promising, with such aid, to 
execute the provisions of that law according to its letter and 

2 


18 


spirit. Congress responded by appropriating only $15,000 
for that purpose, under circumstances graphically told by 
Mr. Curtis in his first annual address as President of this 
League. To that address I must refer you for a character¬ 
istically brilliant sketch of the condition and prospects of 
the reform at that time, my present purpose being solely to 
state, as briefly as possible, the position of the Republican 
party through its representatives with reference to the reform. 

On December 6, 1881, Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, a Demo¬ 
crat, introduced in the Senate a bill bearing his name, 
but drafted by the Committee on Legislation of the New 
York Civil Service Reform Association, of which Mr. Dor¬ 
man B. Eaton was chairman. And in January, another bill 
was introduced by Senator Dawes, of Massachusetts, a 
Republican, also looking to the substitution of merit for 
favor in minor appointments. These bills were referred to 
a committee, of which Senator Hawley of Connecticut, a 
Republican, was Chairman, which in May reported the 
Pendleton bill, somewhat amended, supporting it by a 
statement of the evils of the spoils system, a sketch of the 
■movement for reform, and an appendix containing important 
testimony concerning the reformed methods pursued in the 
New York Custom-House and Post Office. At the same 
session, bills of like,character were introduced in the House 
and referred to a select committee on reforms in the civil 
service, but not reported on; nor was the Pendleton bill 
further discussed in the Senate at that session. 

During the summer and fall of 1882, the friends of the 
reform, notably the President and members of this League, 
redoubled their efforts to arouse public sentiment, in view 
of the general election to be held in November. The result 
is a matter of history, and was thus tersely described by 
Mr. Curtis in his Annual Address at your meeting in August, 
1883: 


19 


‘ ‘ The issue was plainly made and an appeal taken at the 
polls. The result of the election was startling and impres¬ 
sive. The most conspicuous enemies of reform were dis¬ 
missed by their constituents from the public service, and 
although it is not always easy precisely to define the signifi¬ 
cance of a general election, it was universally conceded, 
that, whatever else the result might mean, it was a clear and 
decisive demand of the country for civil service reform. 
The response of Congress was immediate and never was the 
flexibility of a popular system more signally displayed/’ 

The significance of this statement lies in the fact that the 
Republicans elected in November to the 48th Congress num¬ 
bered only 119, as against 150 in the 47th, while the number 
of Democrats rose from 140 to 201. I must again refer you 
to Mr. Curtis’ address for an account, sparkling with charac¬ 
teristic humor and delicate sarcasm, of the progress of the 
Pendleton bill in both houses when the 47th Congress 
re-assembled. From the moment that Congress met, the 
mandate of the people still thundering in their ears, this 
question took precedence over all others. The President’s 
message frankly urged its passage and promised his hearty 
co-operation in enforcing it. Within a week it was taken up 
in the Senate, and was passed on December 27th by 38 
yeas to 5 nays; 23 Republicans, of whom Benjamin Harri¬ 
son, of Indiana, was one, 14 Democrats and 1 Inde¬ 
pendent voting for, and 5 Democrats against it. In the 
House, on January 4th, Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, a Republican, 
and Chairman of the Civil Service Committee, reported the 
bill as passed by the Senate, without amendment. It was 
taken up under a suspension of the rules, thirty minutes 
debate allowed, and passed by 155 yeas to 47 nays; the 
affirmative vote being 100 Republicans, including William 
McKinley, 51 Democrats and 4 Independents: and the 
negative vote 39 Democrats, 7 Republicans and 1 Independ¬ 
ent. Unquestionably the Republican party adopted and 


20 


passed the Pendleton Bill, and by passing it, they fulfilled, 
at last, the promises which Republican National Conventions 
had constantly made for ten years preceding. 

President Arthur promptly fulfilled his own promise to give 
the reform system fair play by appointing as Commissioners 
Mr. Dorman B. Eaton of New York, Dr. J. M. Gregory 
of Illinois, and Judge L. D. Thoman of Ohio; the gentleman 
first named being well described by Mr. Curtis in the same 
address as “ one of the ablest, sincerest and most devoted 
friends of the reform.” On March 9, 1883, the Commis¬ 
sion was organized, and in July the system went into 
operation: the places originally included in the classified 
service, by direction of the President, numbering 13,924. 

The Republican National Convention of 1884 met at 
Chicago on June 3, after a year’s experience of the working 
of the system. The platform unanimously recommended by 
the Committee on Resolutions, as reported by William Mc¬ 
Kinley, Jr., of Ohio, and adopted without dissent, contained 
the following: 

“ Reform of the civil service auspiciously begun under 
Republican administration, should be completed by the 
further extension of the reform system already established 
by law to all the grades of the service to which it is appli¬ 
cable. The spirit and purpose of the reform should be 
observed in all executive appointments, and all laws at vari¬ 
ance with the objects of existing reform legislation should be 
repealed, to the end that the dangers to free institutions 
which lurk in the power of official patronage may be 
wisely and effectively avoided.” 

By the election of Mr. Cleveland as President in Novem¬ 
ber, 1884, and of a clear majority of 21 in the House of 
Representatives of the 49th Congress, the Democratic party 
became responsible for the enforcement of the Civil Service 
Act during the next four years. The conduct of the civil 


21 


service during that period is not within the scope of this paper, 
but it may be noted that the number of classified places 
which during President Arthur’s term had increased by na¬ 
tural growth to 15,573, was nearly doubled under President 
Cleveland: 7,259 being added by his orders, and 4,498 by 
natural growth, making a total of 27,320 at the close of his 
term. And the Democratic National Convention which, on 
June 5, 1888, at St. Louis, re-nominated Mr. Cleveland for 
the Presidency by acclamation, declared in its platform that 
“ honest civil service reform has been inaugurated and main¬ 
tained by President Cleveland and he has brought the pub¬ 
lic service to the highest standard of efficiency.” 

Two weeks later, on June 19, 1888, the Republican Na¬ 
tional Convention, at Chicago, met this challenge by nominat¬ 
ing for President, Benjamin Harrison, who as a senator from 
Indiana had voted for the Pendleton bill in 1883, and 
against all subsequent efforts to repeal or cripple it, and 
by unanimously adopting a platform, from which I quote as 
follows: 

‘ 1 The men who abandoned the Republican party in 1884 
and continue to adhere to the Democratic party, have 
deserted not only the cause of honest government, of sound 
finance, of freedom and purity of the ballot, but especially 
have deserted the cause of reform in the civil service. We 
will not fail to keep our pledges because they have broken 
theirs, or because their candidate has broken his. We 
therefore repeat our declaration of 1884, to wit: The reform 
of the civil service, auspiciously begun under the Republican 
Administration, should be completed by the further exten¬ 
sion of the reform system, already established by law, to 
all the grades of the service to which it is applicable. The 
spirit and purpose of the reform should be observed in all 
executive appointments, and all laws at variance with the 
object of existing reform legislation should be repealed, to 
the end that the dangers to free institutions which lurk in 
the power of official patronage may be wisely and effectually 
avoided.” 


22 


General Harrison, in his letter of acceptance, cordially 
approved “ the clear and forcible expression of the Conven¬ 
tion upon this subject,” advocating further legislation to 
include other branches of the service, and declaring his 
sincere purpose, if elected, to advance the reform. He was 
elected President in November, 1888, and the Republican 
party, having a majority in both houses of the 51st Con¬ 
gress, again became responsible for carrying on the reform. 

President Harrison’s first annual message, of December 
3, 1889, discussed at length the operation of the Act and 
certain criticisms thereon, suggesting certain improvements 
and recommending appropriations for an increase in the 
clerical force. In his subsequent messages the subject was 
discussed in a like spirit. During his term of office 15,598 
places were added to the classified service, 8,690 by his 
orders and the remainder by natural growth. In 1891 the 
merit system was also applied by General Tracy, Secretary 
of the Navy, to the employees of the Government Navy 
Yards, by an admirable and effective order, which removed 
more than 5,000 places from the sphere of politics. It 
should be remarked here, to the credit of the succeeding 
administration, that in 1893 this order was continued in 
force by Secretary Herbert, and President Cleveland’s 
order of May 6, 1896, which greatly enlarged the classified 
service, brought these and many other places for the first 
time within the civil service rules. 

That the Republican party had not changed its position 
was manifested by the action of the Republican National Con¬ 
vention in June, 1892, over which Wm. McKinley, Jr., pre¬ 
sided, in nominating Benjamin Harrison for re-election, and 
unanimously adopting as part of its platform the following: 

“ We commend the spirit and evidence of reform in the 
Civil Service, and the wise and consistent enforcement by 
the Republican party of the laws regulating the same.” 


23 


To this the Democratic National Convention, meeting a 
few clays later, responded by again nominating Mr. Cleve¬ 
land for President, upon a platform declaring that public 
office is a public trust, affirming former demands for the 
reform of the civil servioe, and calling for the honest 
enforcement of all laws regulating the same. So far as 
platforms and public pledges went there was nothing to 
choose between the two great parties. In November, 1892, 
Mr. Cleveland was again elected President and the Demo¬ 
cratic party once more became responsible for the reform. 
During his administration about 44,000 places were added 
to the classified service, including, however, the 5,000 
Navy Yard employees affected by Secretary Tracy’s order 
above mentioned, and 2,412 by natural growth. 

At the date of the 13th annual report of the Civil Service 
Commission, January 30, 1897, the total approximate num¬ 
ber of positions in the civil branch of the government, as 
stated in that report, was 178,717, of which 87,107 were in 
the classified service and 91,610 in the unclassified service; 
but of the number last mentioned about 5,500 are not 
classified, for reasons deemed best for the service, 4,800 
are appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate, and nearly 8,900 are persons employed merely as 
laborers or workmen, leaving 72,371 places considered as 
classifiable but not yet classified, of whom 66,725 are Post¬ 
masters of the fourth class, who are appointed, and may 
be removed, by the Postmaster General. And this was in 
effect the status of the civil service in November, 1896, 
when both the great parties last went before the country, 
with the results already mentioned. 

Well might the Republican candidate for the Presidency, 
in accepting his party’s nomination for that great office, 
declare that its latest pledge was but in keeping with the 
position it had taken for the past twenty-four years. Each 


24 


one of the six Republican National Conventions which 
during that period announced the party policy, emblazoned 
this reform upon its banner. Every President, whose can¬ 
didacy was supported during that period by that party, 
urged upon Congress the necessity of the reform, and 
the legislation necessary to make it effective,— Grant, 
Hayes, Garfield, Arthur and Harrison. True it is that 
within the party lines, especially before 1883, were men 
whose reluctant support, still more their avowed hostility, 
obstructed the reform. But, as we have seen, while 
they could obstruct, they could not control the party: 
though, as we have also seen, their unfaithfulness to its 
pledges bred a popular distrust which brought it to disaster 
and defeat. “ Sweet are the uses of adversity.” The dis¬ 
astrous rout of the Republican party at the polls in Novem¬ 
ber, 1882, was swiftly followed by the enactment of the 
Pendleton bill, under a suspension of its rules by the Re¬ 
publican majority in a House in which, three months earlier, 
that bill was not deemed worthy of a Committee report. 

It would seem incredible, alike on grounds of party 
sagacity, of fidelity to party pledges and to the honored 
leader who urges their fulfillment, and, I do not hesitate to 
add, of personal honor, that any Republican member of 
Congress should take part in repudiating the principles and 
policy of the Civil Service Act. And yet if the press reports 
are true, not only was the opening of the present session 
signalized by attacks upon the Civil Service Act,— not 
merely it methods and its administration, but the policy it 
embodies,— but later reports state that on the evening of 
the 11th, a conference of Republican members of the 
House was held for the purpose of securing changes in the 
Act, at which a Committee was appointed, with Mr. Gros- 
venor, of Ohio, as Chairman, who were instructed to examine 
the bills pending before the Civil Service Committee and 


25 


report thereon: and that the expediency of attacking and 
opposing the civil service items in the pending appropriation 
bill was considered, though not determined on. 

These statements await confirmation, and it would be 
premature to comment upon them now. If the assaults 
upon the merit system, so often defeated, are to be renewed, 
its friends in and out of Congress will be heard from at the 
proper time. They welcome every honest inquiry into its 
operation, for-in the end the truth is sure to prevail. Indif¬ 
ference, not inquiry, reckless and false assertions, not 
sincere investigation, have been the obstacles to the reform. 

But a certain interest attaches to such statements, in view 
of a speech made by Mr. Grosvenor, published in the Con¬ 
gressional Record of August 11, 1897, as part of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the House on July 19th. It reads like one of 
those explosive and ephemeral contributions to political 
literature which, doubtless to the relief of the author, cer¬ 
tainly to the comfort of his colleagues, from time to time 
find vent through the safety valve of a “ leave to print.” It 
contains many assertions of a kind familiar to the advocates 
of the merit system: assertions which — to continue the 
simile — resemble the clouds and wreaths of vapor which 
escape from an overcharged boiler, not only in their noisy 
emergence, extreme tenuity and lack of propelling power, 
but in their sudden collapse and condensation into harmless 
drizzle when brought into contact with the pure cold atmos¬ 
phere of truth. 

For example, a letter of George Washington is quoted in 
which he declined to appoint to “ an office of consequence ” 
a man whose political tenets were adverse to the measures 
the general government were pursuing, because, in the judg¬ 
ment of Washington, he would thereby certainly be enabled 
to embarrass its movements — which “would be a sort of 
political suicide.” And then follows a denunciation of the 


26 


Civil Service Act, as contrary to the views of Washington. 
In fact, that letter (Sparks’ Writings of Washington, Vol. 
XI, p. 74) expressly states that the office which Washington 
then had in mind was that of Attorney General — a Cabinet 
office, which neither the Civil Service Act nor any scheme 
of reform yet proposed has ever included. Why did not 
Mr. Grosvenor mention that fact? The answer to that ques¬ 
tion is obvious. 

But the author of this essay, still speaking in Washington’s 
behalf, further assures us that— 

— “ little did he ever dream that the hour would come in 
American history when the President would have been [sic] % 
forced by law to yield the appointing power given him by the 
terms of the Constitution to a bureau independent of the 
President, whose orders, if he shall violate them, will lay 
him liable to indictment and impeachment .” 

Mr. Grosvenor, by profession at least, is a lawyer. 
Does he really imagine, or is he only trying to persuade 
his confiding constituents, that by any provision of the 
Civil Service Act the President’s appointing power under the 
Constitution is or can be in the slightest degree affected or 
impaired? There is not the least ground for asserting that 
any bureau or commission or officer under the Civil Service 
Act can issue any order which can possibly trench upon the 
President’s appointing power under the Constitution. Is 
he really ignorant that if that Act did contain any provision 
inconsistent with that power it would be simply void? 

And how shall we reconcile this learned jurist’s solicitude 
for the President’s dignity with the following assertion, 
replete with adjectives, but quite ignoring the fact that 
every occupant of that office during the past twenty-four 
years has earnestly advocated the merit system ? 

“ There has never been a cold, deliberate, dispassionate 
and candid or just argument made by these men why this 


27 


law should be upheld and vindicated. They have never yet 
dared to touch the true test of the efficiency or inefficiency, 
the beneficent or non-beneficent character of the adminis¬ 
tration of this law in the United States.” 

This sentence follows an uncomplimentary reference to Mr. 
Logan Carlisle and to Mr. Procter, the present Chairman of 
the Civil Service Commission. It would probably amuse 
Mr. Logan Carlisle should he ever learn that Mr. Grosvenor 
had challenged him to defend the Civil Service Act. Mr. 
Procter, as we all know, has effectively vindicated it by 
reference to facts for the absence of which this essay is 
conspicuous. But the implication is clear that the law is 
not susceptible of a candid and just defense, and that no 
proof has been offered by any one, no test has been made, 
of its efficiency or its beneficent operation. In fact, after 
making the sneering charge that Mr. Jenckes, in 1867, 
44 played to the public galleries,” he ventures upon the 
assertion (I quote his words) — 

“ At that time Mr. Jenckes was challenged over and over 
again to bring forward any reason why such a law was to be 
passed. He was never able to do it , and finally, after his 
defeat, as above stated, he abandoned the field, so far as 
Washington and the Departments were concerned and 
undertook to try and reach inefficiency, as he called it, in 
the customs and internal revenue service.” 

Tiiis is history, as she is wrote —by Mr. Grosvenor. No 
one has told him, apparently, lhat President Grant and his 
successors, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison and McKin¬ 
ley, have made some official declarations upon that subject. 
He has not, perhaps, had time to read the voluminous and 
cumulative testimony, year by year, of Cabinet officers, 
heads of departments, collectors and postmasters in the 
great cities, gladly given in favor of the greatly increased 
efficiency and economy in the public service which this 


28 


Act has produced. Yet the library of Congress is open to 
him. 

But enough of these samples of statesmanship, culled 
from a few of the fifty-three closely printed columns devoted 
to the denunciation of that iniquitous and indefensible law. 
Still assuming that the press reports of the debate in the 
House on Tuesday of last week may be trusted, rrot the 
least significant feature of it, as reported, is the statement 
that Mr. Bailey of Texas, the leader of the Democratic 
party in the House, commended Mr. Grosvenor’s utterances 
against building up an office-holding class in this country — 
“ a doctrine,— he said,— which was almost literally embod¬ 
ied in the Chicago platform.” One is distantly reminded 
of the Arabic proverb — though I should be far from apply¬ 
ing it to any person so estimable as Mr. Bailey and his 
Democratic colleagues — “ The blessings of the evil genii, 
which were curses, were upon him.” 

It has been the purpose of this paper to show the true 
relation of the Republican party to civil service reform, by 
setting forth the principles and policy to which it stands 
publicly pledged, as declared by the official representatives 
of that party. The record speaks for itself. The American 
people, who, in 1896, accepted the pledges of that party, 
will sit in judgment upon its fulfillment, or betrayal, of 
their trust. 































/ 








































































































































































































































































































































































I 




PRESIDENT 


CARL SCHURZ. 

SECRETARY: TREASURER 


GEORGE MCANENY. A. S. FRISSELL. 

VICE-PRESIDENTS: 


CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, 
AUGUSTUS R. MACDONOUGH, 

RT. REY. HENRY C. POTTER, 

J. HALL PLEASANTS, 

WILLIAM 


HENRY HITCHCOCK, 

HENRY C. LEA, 

FRANKLIN MACVEAGH, 

RT. REV. STEPHEN N. RYAN, 
POTTS. 


EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 


WM. A. AIKEN, 

CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, 
SILAS W. BURT, 

EDWARD CARY, 

CHARLES COLLINS, 
RICHARD HENRY DANA, 
DORMAN B. EATON, 

JOHN W. ELA, 

WILLIAM DUDLEY FOULKE, 
RICHARD WATSON GILDER, 


A. R. MACDONOUGH, 
WILLIAM POTTS, 
CHARLES RICHARDSON, 
SHERMAN S. ROGERS, 
CARL SCHURZ, 

EDWARD M. SHEPARD, 
MOORFIELD STOREY, 
LUCIUS B. SWIFT, 
HERBERT WELSH, 
EVERETT P. WHEELER, 
MORRILL WYMAN, JR. 


WILLIAM G. LOW 


